Ex parte FINK - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1999-2832                                         Page 5           
          Application No. 08/816,559                                                    


                                        OPINION                                         
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                   
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                    
          claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective                       
          positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a                
          consequence of our review, we make the determinations which                   
          follow.                                                                       


          The obviousness rejection                                                     
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 to 17 under                
          35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                              


               In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner                  
          bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of                  
          obviousness.  See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28                      
          USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  A prima facie case of                    
          obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would                  
          have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the                      
          relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed                 
          invention.  See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d                     









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007